To Hell In A Hand Basket

[Troy]

By the way, I do like your pictures.

Thanks.

Then again, many people do consider photography one of those things that anybody could do, say in comparison to painting or sculpture. I wouldn't think you'd be too wild about that notion.

I just had that question dropped on me by an interviewer for a local paper. It's analagous to the Carl Lewis thing. Yes, it's just taking pictures, but it's taking pictures to another level, concentrating on the quality of light and composition. A photographer with training (or practice) is gonna take a much higher percentage of "good" pictures that someone who is not.

I DO understand the dilema, and that's one of the reasons why my photos are so complex and screwey; it makes them take on a more "painterly" quality.

But, it is little different than saying rap is easy, singing is easy, only a specific realm of music takes talent and the rest can be done by anyone. Rap is like anything else. Anyone can do it. Only a few can do it well.

It's not that I'm saying it's easy, more that I'm saying that many of the practitioners of rap don't have any idea how the mechanics of music works because what they are doing is, as Jack says, more akin to poetry than music. If these guys want music awards, they should learn how to play an instrument and write songs.

But, I was only comparing art to music. In that vein, since you consider rap so easy, I really think you may wanna give up photography. There's a lot more money in rap if you can make it big, which shouldn't be hard since it's so easy. And the groupies are on a whole 'nother level.

Ha! I tried poetry in my 20s, went to a bunch of readings and flopped miserably. Free verse is in and I'm much more structured and rhymey. Not to mention, most of the poems I wrote were about my genitalia and dropping anvils on kittens. I was messing with their serious nature and they hated me for it.

Rap is for and about a world completely alien to me. A world that I have no desire to be involved in either. It panders to a black culture that revels in debasement and greed. My black friends think it's a dead end for black youth, and I'm inclined to agree with them.

[BarryL]

Hillary Clinton getting nominated for reading her book?

That woman lives a blessed life. She helps boot Nixon out of office. She gets away with $100,000 insider-trading profit before insider trading is a political issue. She becomes first lady. She gets a multi-million dollar book deal. She become a Senator.

And now a Grammy Award Nomination!!!

You gotta love it. Only in (God Bless) America.

BTW, thanks for the timemachine disks. I've got some stuff going out that you might get before Christmas, but don't count on it.

[Troy]

I would disagree vehemently that that is what sets Bowie apart from other musicians. He is a consumate artist -- musician -- even if he didn't play any other instruments.

Yeah, see the difference is that he's a much more well rounded artist.

Here's another art analogy; In order for a painter to be able to distort and force perspective in a painting, they MUST first be able to do that painting WITHOUT forcing and distorting the perspective. That way they know how far to push it. In order to see weird, you need to see normal so that you understand what weirdness works and what doesn't.

Oh, you can do it, but the trained eye can tell that the artist is in over his head.

Music is no different.

Maybe your circle of friends is too small or something (perhaps too specialized) but there are people who simply don't care about music, there are people who do care, but can't do it themselves, etc.

My contextural point is that everyone can sing "Happy Birthday to you", but everyone can't play it on a piano. Dig?

Rap is music to a larger percentage of the population than you will ever know, and part of being music is having an audience.

It's all about perception. I couldn't even begin to care what the unwashed masses think about the viability of rap as music. What the hell do they know? If the bulk of the masses thinks the war in Iraq is justified, does that make it right? (just a rhetorical question not meant to spark a discussion about this subject)

[Slosh]

A coffin for Thing?

What flowergirls carry pedals in?

[Dusty Chalk]

So you're saying that every opera singer, every motown do-wop singer, every member of every a capella band ever, is not a musician.

Ella Fitzgerald is not a musician.

Billie Holiday is not a musician.

Maria Callas, Pavarotti -- none of those are musicians?

You're high. Higher than the moon.

You tell me that the difference I am making is semantical -- I disagree. I think the difference you are making is semantical. You say (and correct me if I misinterpret you) that anyone can sing, some better than others, but this differentiation is unimportant. I say that every person can make music, some better than others, but that this differentiation is no different than the differentiation that you are making about singers. I cite an example of some really bad music -- not to try to prove the flexibility of the definition of music, but to prove to you that everyone is able to make music (a point I think you missed), but, as you say about singing, to varying degrees. I disagree that by your own standards this applies to the ability to make music any more than it does to singing. To sing is to make music.

Do you know that there is hardware out there that you can attach to your throat so that it can sense what your singing, and, combined with a microphone input, you can use it to generate MIDI events (synthesizer controller). Thus, theoretically, one could use this system to make music. Not just sing. So anyone, given that they have the ability to sing, could theoretically use this system to make music.

Now, I may have come across the wrong way -- I disagree that everyone has the ability to sing, and I disagree that everyone has the ability to make music. My definition of music is set to a higher standard than many of the examples that I have been citing here. I don't think that crap that Adrian Belew's two-year-old daughter counts as music, but I do think that that stuff that he played around it made the entire product "music".

I think there is a threshold of ability beyond which, if one can transcend it, one can become called a musician. Anyone can sing (although if you honestly believe that, you haven't been to Karaoke night in a long time), but you have to be able to sing with a certain amount of ability -- be that conviction, emotion, or the ability to carry a melody, I don't care, I'm not going to try to bring this into the realm of Jay's freakin' overplayers/underplayers debate -- Joey Ramone was a singer of adequate quality to be considered a musician, okay, Jay? -- but one has to be able to have a certain amount of ability to be considered a singer/musician.

Finally -- I wasn't citing rap's popularity with the masses as a hermetically sealed case that it therefore is music. My point was only that having an audience is certainly one measure of being an artist. I would even go so far as to say, a successful one. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it not art. There's a lot of art I don't like, but that doesn't make it not art. It just makes it bad art.

[MindGoneHaywire]

WARNING: LONG POST. So many arguments, so little time. I guess it's time to find out if this board limits the length of posts.

Barry:

When rappers get the most nominations for Grammy awards, you know that popular culture has gone to hell in a handbasket.

The same thing was said of rock music.

Joel2762:

Rap is just fast talking. Big deal. Anyone can do that.

Wrong. Rap is not just fast talking. It may not be a big deal, but not anyone can do it.

Mr. Midfi:

And running is just fast walking, so Carl Lewis was no big deal either.

Good reply.

Troy:

it's still just running regardless of how fast it is. Anyone can do it.

Wrong. Most people know of at least one individual who can do no such thing. (I’m taking this statement literally for a reason)

Ergo, if rapping is just fast talking, well then it's still just talking . . . and anyone can do that.

Wrong. Most people know of at least one individual who can do no such thing.

anyone (except J) can drive a car

Wrong. I CAN drive a car. I’ve never had a license, but have driven on many occasions (even used a stick shift a few times) & once even owned a car that I drove using my learner’s permit (which I traded in for the non-driver’s license state ID that at least looks like a driver’s license, unlike permits, which most bartenders, bouncers, & deli clerks refused to acknowledge as being proper identification). But I CHOSE to stop driving because it’s just plain f*cking stupid.

Not just fast talkers.

I dispute that rap is just fast talking. It’s rhythmic, it’s syncopated, it’s a LOT of things that talking, and fast talking, are not.

Joel 2762:

What about the singers and bands that have real talent. They write great songs with good meanings, some have interesting stories to them.

Considering you're not providing any examples to back this statement up, it comes off as ridiculously subjective, to the point of being irrelevant.

But these rappers come in and take the awards for their small effort.

I’d like to know yr source for yr info on how much effort it takes to make a rap record.

Troy:

Chalky- I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone can make music. I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone is an artist either. That's a BS idea used to validate all the bad art of the 20th century.

Everyone’s standards are different. I agree with Dusty’s framing of this argument. If someone you don’t consider an artist has created a work you don’t consider art, but said work has been purchased by a customer who DOES define it as art, how is it that the creator, having now sold ‘art’ work as an ‘artist,’ is not an ‘artist?’ Please explain. I well understand that I may not think it’s ‘art,’ either, but that’s my standard. In a similar discussion/violent argument on another board recently, I stated that my standard for what is music—even if it’s the recorded screams of an infant, the recorded sound of a hammer pounding nails, the recorded sound of human regurgitation…wait a second, I hear that on a Butthole Surfers record. Where was I? Oh, yeah. If it’s produced & packaged as music, and a consumer is willing to buy it AS MUSIC, then I do not feel that I or anyone else is qualified to state that such a product is ‘not music’ to them just because THEY DON’T THINK it’s music. So apply that to what you said about ‘bad art.’

Everyone with vocal cords can sing, no matter how Shatner-esque or Yoko-ish they sound

Wrong. VOCALIZING is something that everyone with vocal cords can do. Singing is a MUSICAL SKILL that NOT everyone can do. Not everyone with vocal cords is capable of producing sounds that can be applied to a musical chart. Atonal vocalizing cannot be charted and therefore is not singing. And neither Shatner nor Yoko were 100% atonal.

Not everyone cannot pick up a guitar or sit at a keyboard and make music. They can make sound, but that does not mean it's music.

Wrong. They may not be able to PLAY, because that is a MUSICAL SKILL. But if they make sound that can be applied to a musical chart, then it MAY be considered music. I will personally stick to my standard that it should/must be SALEABLE as music to be considered music, with an asterisk for a very technical & arcane exception that says that if it can be charted, it is indeed music.

I am writing this as I scroll through the thread & I see that Dusty has addressed some of these points, so forgive me. So far I’m not disagreeing with much if anything in his arguments to yr statements. So:

This is just semantics. What you're talking about is BS music that no one wants to hear, let alone pay to hear. It may be music technically to you, but to me it's just sound.

It’s NOT semantics, it’s what IS and ISN’T. Whether or not it’s ‘BS music that no one wants to hear’ doesn’t mean it’s just sound & not music just because that’s the semantic prism you’re choosing to view this through.

Everyone sings. EVERYONE, even Dave G. Everyone knows tunes and sings along

Wrong. I have been acquainted with several people who told me that they have never engaged in any such activity in their entire lives. Some were people who never listened to music, but most at least listened to music on the radio.

Jack70:

Likewise, I see Rap as "outside" of music... it uses few of the disciplines/skills of "true music" (a little rhythm is all).

So what? That’s enough.

Simply put, it's NOT music.... no more than "chess" is sport

Absolutely, unequivocally, 100% wrong. Come on, Jackson. You know better than to say something like that. And you know the chess analogy doesn’t hold up.

it ain't really music. It's more akin to poetry... but it's been 100 years since poetry has been "hip" in our popular culture... hence Rap gets placed in the "music" dumper... for better or worse (worse IMO).

No, it’s because it’s created by MUSIC professionals, produced by MUSIC companies (okay, record companies, but if you can find one human being willing to testify in a court of law that the primary & most important record company products are NOT music, I’d like to meet him), sold by businesses that can be called MUSIC stores or RECORD stores (again, as a product that is classified as MUSIC, even if it’s the MUSIC section in a Barnes & Noble or Wal-Mart store—not poetry, or beef jerky, or shampoo, or #2 pencils—MUSIC), to MUSIC consumers (who, if you took a poll, would, I am confident, answer in at least a 99% percentile that their rap purchase was indeed a music purchase), who, in their consumption of the product, assume most if not all of the necessary characteristics and factors that must be present and in effect (i.e. the product can only be used if inserted into a hardware device such as one necessary for the playback of other recorded music products) if you are to define the phrase ‘listening to music.’

Nobody:

Rap is like anything else. Anyone can do it.

This is obviously in a different context, and I’m not trying to be an @sshole, just consistent. Unless I'm wrong, my understanding is that you don't actually believe this, at least not in the same way that others do.

In that vein, since you consider rap so easy, I really think you may wanna give up photography. There's a lot more money in rap if you can make it big, which shouldn't be hard since it's so easy.

Well put.

Dusty:

He is a consumate artist -- musician -- even if he didn't play any other instruments.

I don’t really have a problem with this, but…and I know you’re aware of this…if you’re in a discussion with someone who insists on being a stickler, they may insist, and be technically correct, that no vocalist, no matter how proficient, and I include Ella Fitzgerald, Frank Sinatra, Pavarotti—any vocalist that does not actually play a musical instrument can be called a musician. They will say, in a strict technical discussion on the issue, that a non-instrumentalist cannot be a musician.

Okay, I'm coming back to this after seeing yr latest post. I went to the dictionary & looked up musician: a composer, conductor, or performer of music; especially INSTRUMENTALIST. That’s in Merriam-Webster Online, and the emphasis is theirs. So I do agree with much of what you wrote in that last post.

Troy:

It's running taken to another level, but to those of us that couldn't care less it's still just running.

Dusty made a great point in a nearby post: it’s COMPETITIVE running. Those of you who couldn’t care less & choose not to draw this distinction are making a big mistake.

It's not that I'm saying it's easy

You said something—if not EXACTLY like that, then certainly VERY MUCH like that.

many of the practitioners of rap don't have any idea how the mechanics of music works

Many if not most practitioners of MUSIC have only a very basic & limited understanding of the mechanics of music—usually limited to the one or two or MAYBE three things that it is that THEY do. Does a French Horn player in a symphony orchestra have any understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by an improvisational saxophone player in a jazz club who works without the benefit of a chart? How about the other way around? Does the guitarist for Mudvayne have any understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by the director of the Harlem Boys’ Choir? Would Thelonius Monk have had an understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by a player who uses a Chapman Stick? Does Neil Peart have an understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by a guitarist using a Joe Maphis doubleneck Mosrite? And to placate some some of you, does Johnny Ramone have an understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by Robert Fripp? There are obviously an untold number of musical mechanics that a typical rapper (an individual who ADMITTEDLY is PROBABLY LESS MUSICAL than the typical MUSICIAN) will have absolutely no understanding of; but the chances are very good that none of the individuals in the examples I offer will possess any understanding of the mechanics of music that a rapper must understand.

If these guys want music awards, they should learn how to play an instrument and write songs.

Wrong. That’s what they should do if they want instrumentalist awards or songwriting awards. Otherwise, yr statement would apply to ANY nominee of ANY music award EVER who did not play an instrument, and/or write songs. I won’t bother with any examples of such individuals unless you really want to see some. Suffice it to say that such a list would include some of the most prominent, influential, and popular MUSIC artists of the last 100 years. Including, I have every confidence, SOMEONE whose work could be found in yr record collection.

Rap is for and about a world completely alien to me.

So? If it’s so easy, something anyone can do, ‘not music,’ or any of the other things you’ve said about rap in the past, how could that possibly matter? Once upon a time, rock music was so easy, anyone could do it. Quick, name someone besides Davy Jones who went from a musical theater background to become a rock star—rock music, for and about a world completely alien to people like him.

A world that I have no desire to be involved in either

You’re in that world, whether you like it or not. You don’t have to live in South Central to exist in the world rap operates in. Just like you didn't have to be in Chicago or Little Italy to be in the same world ‘Scarface’ was a part of when it was first released well over a half-century ago. Hmmm…’Scarface’…gangsta rap…hmmm…

It panders to a black culture that revels in debasement and greed

Oh, bullsh*t. The rap in my house does NO SUCH THING. I’d like to know why you feel that artists such as the Beastie Boys, Public Enemy, De La Soul, A Tribe Called Quest, P.M. Dawn, the Pharcyde, and Wyclef Jean—to name just a few—do anything that you just described.

My black friends think it's a dead end for black youth, and I'm inclined to agree with them.

They’re entitled to their opinions, just as you are. So how about if you ask them how ANY of the artists I just named are a ‘dead end for black youth?’ I’d REALLY like to know what their responses would be to such a question.

Here's another art analogy; they MUST first be able to do that…WITHOUT…
Oh, you can do it, but the trained eye can tell that the artist is in over his head.
Music is no different.

I’ll apply this statement to music: in order for a musician to play COMPLICATED music well, they must first be able to play SIMPLE music well. Well, NO WAY, PAL. By this logic prog musicians have to be able to play music as simple as, for instance, the blues. This is a fallacy. And I’m not talking about feeling, either; forget I said blues, let’s say blues structures. I’ve seen many, many players in my time whose understanding of music is such that they are simply NOT ABLE to play ANYTHING simple; they must ALWAYS overplay, and overplay in as complicated a manner as possible. I’ve been at plenty of social functions with ‘jams’ where you try to engage these sorts of players in something just a TRIFLE less complicated than what it is they’re doing. Many simply cannot. Some don’t understand the concept of a song—something with a beginning and an ending; some don’t understand that music does not mean one has to play lead guitar exclusively, with no attempt made at rhythm; some don't realize that some lyrics are meant to be heard without benefit of neverending soloing; others don’t have the attention span or discipline necessary to play something that’s ANY more repetitive than busy, note-y, endless, free-form soloing. There are many players who approach music, especially guitar, in more of a mathematical fashion than a musical one. Such players are often devoid of the ability to play simply, just as I am mostly devoid of the capability to play in a manner that most would not consider simple. If I didn’t apply yr analogy correctly, my apologies. Tell me where I got it wrong.

My contextural point is that everyone can sing "Happy Birthday to you"

Wow, now I’m REALLY surprised that you’d say something like that. Perhaps they can sing it, but they damn sure can’t sing it WELL. ‘Happy Birthday To You’ is considered to be an ESPECIALLY difficult song to sing, to the point where it is often used as a benchmark in the course of a professional audition. Actually, I do believe it has even been used for Broadway auditions. Yes, I'm serious. The jump in octave on the third line is no mean feat.

It's all about perception. I couldn't even begin to care what the unwashed masses think about the viability of rap as music. What the hell do they know?

Not caring about anyone else’s perception is GREAT. Except…what the unwashed masses think has a LOT to do with a LOT of what is produced (if not created) by entertainment companies. Now, yr taste in music, like many of us on this board, is interesting, fairly unique, and idiosyncratic. How about yr taste in movies? Did you like the first ‘Matrix’ movie? Wouldn’t it suck if it had never been made? What the unwashed masses think has a lot to do with movies like that being made. I know that if it hadn’t been there might’ve been something else that I might’ve enjoyed in a similar way, but I’d feel cheated if it had never been made because the unwashed masses wouldn’t have been expected to like such a thing. Now, of course, the unwashed masses’ opinions lead to the creation, production, & distribution of tons of crap, and not enough that I DO like—so, in a sense, you’re right, I really don’t care. (Except, both of us are on the same side of the argument that says that there's plenty of great stuff out there that's a little harder to find because it's under the radar of mass production) But I DO care enough to understand that it’s all part of the equation. Which means that you SHOULD care at least a whit what the unwashed masses think. Some times their opinions are not as advanced as what an authority on a subject may know to be true; other times they are more advanced than one would think considering how slow some businesses & industries are to respond to the desires of their customer base. In this case their opinions on rap are more advanced than the opinions of those who contend that rap is not music.

I’ve had a BUSY week, so I apologize for catching up in this clunky fashion. But I couldn’t let the posts in this thread go.

[jack70]

(Sweeps pieces off board. Fog chess. The sports analogy is a bad one -- sports is about competition, and music is fundamentally not.

Then you forfeit, right?...LOL!

I wasn't so much analogizing sports and music... but just the way activities are categorized. You can argue it's just semantics, but I see a qualitative hierarchy that's similar. I was pointing out that certain activities (like chess, darts, etc) are generally called sports when they're more accurately NOT sports (in my view anyway). They're skill games. Yet they're commonly thrown under that umbrella. Rap likewise is called music, but (in my view anyway) isn't most accurately music.

You can make a legitimate argument it comes from a musical/similar-social tradition, and even make valid points about how it has some "musical" bona fides... but I'm still gonna place it out "on the fringes" of music, the same way I place chess & bowling outside the "sports" mainstream. I simply see it more under the umbrella of spoken word, poetry, performance art, dramatic readings, etc... all of which I'm sure you wouldn't call "music" either? I'm not knocking it as an art form. (even though it's not my cuppa tea).

Rap is music to a larger percentage of the population than you will ever know, and part of being music is having an audience.

I don't dispute that, but it still doesn't make it music to me. Reading a speech ain't music either. BTW, a majority of the population believes in ghosts, UFOs, and a conspiracy in JFK's death -- all total crap IMO. Majority... is often just mob rule.

Originally Posted by jack70
As for the off-hand comment about Lewis "just running"... that's way too dismissive of his incredible work ethic and mental tenacity to reach that level.

Originally Posted by Troy
Yes, lots of work and reasons to give up. It's running taken to another level, but to those of us that couldn't care less it's still just running.

True, but to those people who don't care anything about music, film, literature or other arts, you might not dismiss all those things quite that easily ("...that Michael Hedges guy... he's just another geetar player" or "Bach (or Shakespeare)... who cares?"). Running is probably the first true sport humans engaged in. I'm a bit prejudiced here I know, but I just think there's a lot there (under the surface) that's worthy of appreciation. It's just not apparent to outsiders. A month ago we had a State-Open (high-school) cross country meet that was a duel of classic proportions. It may have been "just running", but it was spectacular competition, as great as any Olympic race I've seen. I'll agree, many could care less... or never appreciate it.

Hillary Clinton getting nominated for reading her book?
That woman lives a blessed life. She helps boot Nixon out of office. She gets away with $100,000 insider-trading profit before insider trading is a political issue. She becomes first lady. She gets a multi-million dollar book deal. She become a Senator.
And now a Grammy Award Nomination!!!
You gotta love it. Only in (God Bless) America.

Whats nuttier is they'll probably give it to her (LOL), despite the fact she's a really lousy speaker (inflection, tone, shrillness). Now if we could just get her to read her college thesis (sealed under lock & key).

sold by businesses that can be called MUSIC stores or RECORD stores (again, as a product that is classified as MUSIC, even if it’s the MUSIC section in a Barnes & Noble or Wal-Mart store—...

I was expecting you to jump all over this Jay... LOL. First off, I think you missed my sports analogy stuff just like Dusty did (above)... it's a MUSICAL catgorization/ nomenclature thing I'm alluding to. I used the sports thing simply to show how popular culture tends to lump similarly related things together under big umbrellas.

Second... Rap is sold in "Music Stores" mainly because the product is in the form of a Compact Disc. Books, movies, comedy albums, spoken-word books-on-cassette, etc, etc are all sold there too... are all those things "Music" too?

Finally, I'm cool with Rap being called "music" (no skin off my as_)... but I just think it's a hybrid that's something a little different. I think a lot of people are misreading the way I want to "classify" Rap, as a slam on it.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Rap is sold in "Music Stores" mainly because the product is in the form of a Compact Disc. Books, movies, comedy albums, spoken-word books-on-cassette, etc, etc are all sold there too... are all those things "Music" too?

Not just CDs, but cassettes, and vinyl, too, you'll find rap on all of those, and probably soon on formats like DVD-A and/or SACD, if they haven't put out any titles yet. Now: if there are notes, and it can be charted, yes, it is music. Even if it's on a 'comedy' record, (say a comic singing a funny song with musical accompaniment) or if it's a poet reading over music ala Patti Smith on that song on her first album, or on an album that would be classified in a category not essentially considered 'music,' yet sold in a store that regularly sells products that can & must be classified as 'music.' I might agree that an entire record of comedy or poetry should not be classified as 'music' if there is two minutes of chartable sounds and 40 with none, but that does not mean there is not music on the record. 99% of rap occurs with some measure of musical, or at least rhythmic, accompaniment, which means to me that the quotient of 'music' is high enough for it indeed to be classified as 'music,' as opposed to a non-music product that just happens to contain some elements of music.

Rap is not spoken-word, comedy, or a book-on-cassette. It is music. How could anyone call it 'not music' when there is a certain percentage of it that's 'organically' produced, i.e. live band, real instruments, NO sampling? What the hell would you call that? How would that be 'outside of music?' And if it isn't, then where do you draw the line? I mean, a LOT of rap has some or a lot of sampling, and a little in the way of live instruments, played by 'real musicians.' I take it you're aware that quite a few of the older jazz cats still around have been playing on rap records for years now? Guys like Donald Byrd, Ramsey Lewis, Herbie Hancock, Freddie Hubbard, & Ron Carter. And I'm not talking about sampling--they all went in & recorded new tracks for RAP records, a lot for Blue Note, a label that has been putting out these 'outside of music' rap records for some time now. Which means that you're saying that records with guys like these on them are 'not music,' or 'outside of music.' Or...maybe you're saying that it's music if guys like that are on it, but not if they're not? Please clarify. There has to be a line somewhere if you're willing to acknowledge that these records are indeed music. And when you describe that line, there are three artists for which I'd like to know if you consider them music, or 'not music,' or 'outside of music': Gil-Scott Heron, Ken Nordine, & Linton Kwesi Johnson. Are they music? If not, why? If yes, then why them, but not rap?

So...where does it end, & where does it begin? Unless, of course, it's all outside of music. In the case of rap that contains all live playing, if you're going to call that 'not music' or 'outside of music'...I simply cannot find the words to express how wrong-headed this is. If you're willing to admit that these records, containing live playing, have to be considered 'music,' then I'd like to know where the lines are drawn, and why, how, and on what basis. If you use the argument that rap is not music on the basis of the sampling, and the fact that a certain percentage of it contains absolutely no 'organic' creation to speak of, then what of sample-predominant electronic music? For if you are not willing to call rap music, then you must apply that same standard to the world of electronica, regardless of whether or not it's dance music specifically. Casting rap outside of music is certainly significant in terms of the volume of work/art/product/music you're placing there; if you add electronica to that purgatory, then you're talking about a very decent percentage of all 'music'-type projects produced over the past decade. Is that a road you really want to go down?

I'm cool with Rap being called "music" (no skin off my as_)... but I just think it's a hybrid that's something a little different. I think a lot of people are misreading the way I want to "classify" Rap, as a slam on it.

Okay, you say this now, but yesterday I read yr post that said:

I see Rap as "outside" of music

and

Simply put, it's NOT music

and

it ain't really music.

I see a big difference there, don't you? And I direct this to Troy as well, and Barry, and anyone else who's going to try to tell me that rap--a genre I mostly stopped listening to over a decade ago--is 'not music.'

[Dusty Chalk]

Thank you, Jay! Well said, and you brought up a lot of points that I hadn't even thought of, yet. Plus, there's nothing wrong with a little reinforcement on the good points, because sometimes phrasing something slightly differently is just what it takes to get through to these numbskulls. So no need to apologize.

Jack -- yes, most certainly definitely I forfeit. If you consider never accepting the initial challenge to your game as a forfeit. I hate people who try to spin-doctor a non-game as a win.

Just for the record, Hilary was nominated in the "Spoken Word" category -- a category which has nothing to do with music, officially. I.E. those of you who pretend that this is some slight against the term "music" are deliberately using this fact incorrectly. The organization that sponsors the Grammy's is the Recording Academy, and recording, which, although mostly used for music, is also used for comedy, spoken word, sound effects, and opera.

NP: Music...erm...organized noise. Oval's 94diskont, in Pitchfork's top 100 albums of the 90's.

[Troy]

Jesus Christ, Jay . . . where Do you find the time?

This has spiraled into some incredibly oblique tangents and I've kinda lost track of what the point of all this really was so it's easy to come accross as self contradictory because we're all discussing 14 things at the same time. It doesn't help at all that this board threads very poorly either . . .

it's still just running regardless of how fast it is. Anyone can do it.

Wrong. Most people know of at least one individual who can do no such thing. (I’m taking this statement literally for a reason)

Sure, my uncle Richard has only one leg. I know some other guys in wheelchairs too.

Don't loophole me J. You know the implications of saying "anyone". There will always be an exception to the rule, but a rule is a rule for a reason.

The driving thing was meant as an easy-going humorous poke atcha Jay. Guess I poked too deep. Excuse me.

Everyone (again there's always exceptions to the rule, but they are rare) can sing "Happy Birthday", but not everyone can play it on an instrument was my contextural point..

It had NOTHING to do with how well they can sing it, It's about the fact that they CAN sing it at all. This sets singing apart from musicians.

You and Dusty can turn it around however you want, but that's the fact, jack.

in order for a musician to play COMPLICATED music well, they must first be able to play SIMPLE music well. Well, NO WAY, PAL.music: in order for a musician to play COMPLICATED music well, they must first be able to play SIMPLE music well. Well, NO WAY, PAL. By this logic prog musicians have to be able to play music as simple as, for instance, the blues. This is a fallacy. And I’m not talking about feeling, either; forget I said blues, let’s say blues structures. I’ve seen many, many players in my time whose understanding of music is such that they are simply NOT ABLE to play ANYTHING simple; they must ALWAYS overplay, and overplay in as complicated a manner as possible. I’ve been at plenty of social functions with ‘jams’ where you try to engage these sorts of players in something just a TRIFLE less complicated than what it is they’re doing. Many simply cannot. Such players are often devoid of the ability to play simply, just as I am mostly devoid of the capability to play in a manner that most would not consider simple. If I didn’t apply yr analogy correctly, my apologies. Tell me where I got it wrong

Yes, you missed my point completely. See, I AGREE with your paragraph, Jay, whether you realize that you shot yourself down or not. These individuals that don't know how to play anything other than the overplaying you describe don't have the foundation to play simply. Sure, they can play complex, but they don't understand that in order for the complex parts to really impact, you need to offset them with simple parts. Therefore, they do not play the complicated parts well because they don't understand about counterpoint and letting the music breathe. Nope, in order to play complicated, well, you have to be able to play simply, well.

Chalky- I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone can make music. I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone is an artist either. That's a BS idea used to validate all the bad art of the 20th century.

Everyone’s standards are different. I agree with Dusty’s framing of this argument. If someone you don’t consider an artist has created a work you don’t consider art, but said work has been purchased by a customer who DOES define it as art, how is it that the creator, having now sold ‘art’ work as an ‘artist,’ is not an ‘artist?’ Please explain. I well understand that I may not think it’s ‘art,’ either, but that’s my standard. If it’s produced & packaged as music, and a consumer is willing to buy it AS MUSIC, then I do not feel that I or anyone else is qualified to state that such a product is ‘not music’ to them just because THEY DON’T THINK it’s music. So apply that to what you said about ‘bad art.

Yes, everyone's standards are different. Hell Jay, there are people that think my photography is cheesy crap and that I am a hack BS artist. To them I say, what are you looking at it for? Warhol taught us that being an artist is all about perception. If you can convince the art establishment that your pile of paperclips stacked "just so" at the MOMA is an artistic statement by writng some longwinded polysylabic manifesto about it, then hey, you're an artist!

But wait, that's only the cogonscenti's perception. Does that mean that they're right? Hell no. You and I have just as much right to say whether it's art as they do. I reserve the right to my opinion just as much as anybody else, so if I say it's not art, then it isn't. It's a terrible mistake to let someone else make these decisions for you, yet that is precisely how most of the world operates.

Not caring about anyone else’s perception is GREAT. Except…what the unwashed masses think has a LOT to do with a LOT of what is produced (if not created) by entertainment companies.

Yeah, and that's why most everything I like flies under their radar.

Did you like the first ‘Matrix’ movie? Wouldn’t it suck if it had never been made? What the unwashed masses think has a lot to do with movies like that being made. I know that if it hadn’t been there might’ve been something else that I might’ve enjoyed in a similar way, but I’d feel cheated if it had never been made because the unwashed masses wouldn’t have been expected to like such a thing.

Frankly, The Matrix WAS under the radar. It happened to strike a chord with the masses and become a hit. It's mind boggling to me that 3/4 of the people that like that movie still can't explain the plot.

Your comments about feeling ripped off if it hadn't been made is extremely weird. How many supercool things haven't been made? Do you feel bad? Well, I don't . . . because they haven't been made. How can you miss something that doesn't exist?

Now, of course, the unwashed masses’ opinions lead to the creation, production, & distribution of tons of crap, and not enough that I DO like—so, in a sense, you’re right, I really don’t care. (Except, both of us are on the same side of the argument that says that there's plenty of great stuff out there that's a little harder to find because it's under the radar of mass production) But I DO care enough to understand that it’s all part of the equation. Which means that you SHOULD care at least a whit what the unwashed masses think.

I do pay attention to most pop culture stuff. You're right, it's part of my job. But while I do care what they think, I don't agree with it and go with the flow. Hell, Jay, 95% of the masses just do what they are told now anyway. Kids today are being TOLD that rap is where it's at now and they just blindly buy into it, hook, line and sinker.

It all goes back to perception and thinking for yourself.

In this case their opinions on rap are more advanced than the opinions of those who contend that rap is not music.

No, in this case, the masses are being told that rap is great and important and viable by a media and entertianment industry who's only goal is to sell them as much of it as possible.

Besides, I never said that "Rap is not music". I believe I said that "rappers (ie: the singers themselves) were not musicians". Kinda like Pat Boone or Milli Vanilli. They are just a face. There are always exceptions to the rule and you can cite 5 that are NOT just a face, I don't care, because for ever one you name there are 100 that are not.

And you can tell me 'til you're blue in the face that rap is not about debasement and greed. You are deluding yourself. Just turn on MTV and watch 5 rap videos at random, dude! It's truly appaling. Maybe you own the few rap albums that are not about crawlin' up inside giant black a$$es and the 'bling, but that is an exception to the rule. It's like saying that Heavy Metal is not about agression and violence because there are some Christian metal bands.

[Dusty Chalk]

Yes, everyone's standards are different. Hell Jay, there are people that think my photography is cheesy crap and that I am a hack BS artist.

So they're saying "your art is bad", not that "it's not art". There is a fundamental difference. The first one is an opinion, the second is an argument of definition. Definition is a function of language, that is NOT a function of opinion.

That's like me saying "purple is a bad colour" vs. "purple is not a colour". You can't argue with me about the first one, because it's my opinion. However, you can and should argue with me about the second, because if I begin to misuse the language to such an extreme degree, then we will lose the ability to communicate.

You and I have just as much right to say whether it's art as they do. I reserve the right to my opinion just as much as anybody else, so if I say it's not art, then it isn't. It's a terrible mistake to let someone else make these decisions for you, yet that is precisely how most of the world operates.

You're mixing opinion and fact. The correct statement is "...if I say it's bad art, then it's bad art." You are not entitled to be self-delusional. If you say the sky is not blue, you certainly retain the right to do so, but you're still on some absolute scale WRONG.

[Troy]

That's like me saying "purple is a bad colour" vs. "purple is not a colour". You can't argue with me about the first one, because it's my opinion. However, you can and should argue with me about the second, because if I begin to misuse the language to such an extreme degree, then we will lose the ability to communicate.You're mixing opinion and fact. The correct statement is "...if I say it's bad art, then it's bad art." You are not entitled to be self-delusional. If you say the sky is not blue, you certainly retain the right to do so, but you're still on some absolute scale WRONG.

No.

Your analogy with purple doesn't work. Art is not an absolute the way purple is.

The sky is NOT blue. I've seen thousands of colors in the sky.

At some point, certain pieces sold as art are so bad that they cannot be considered art . . . by me.

Purple is purple, no matter what you or I say (NO, it's violet! It is not, it's magenta!!), but a white canvas is a white canvas. It's not art for everyone just because some overeducated head-tripper says it is. No manifesto, no matter how eloquent and no reviewer in however high-falootin' art mag is gonna make me say that it is EVEN art, let alone bad art.

It's like saying dogcrap is food. Wellll, you could eat it, so technically it IS food. But aside from Divine, who would?

Whether something IS art is totally in the eye of the beholder, not the guy who created it or some goober in a magazine. It's is entirely up to YOU as to whether you think it's art or not.

[Dusty Chalk]

No.

Your analogy with purple doesn't work. Art is not an absolute the way purple is.

Yes it is. There are some elements to art that we must agree on, otherwise we would not be able to communicate, agreed? It has to have an artist controlling or creating it (I.E. even computer-generated poetry had someone write the original program and provide the input); it has to have at least a potential audience (I only qualify it with "potential" because if a deaf person were to write a symphony that no-one else ever hears, I would have to say that art was still created), and it has to have at least one "artistic" aspect of it -- I realize that's kind of a circular definition, but I don't know how to put that in words, yet, other than to list all possible artistic aspects -- to tell a story, to evoke an emotion, to criticize sociopolitics, etc. But I don't know how to describe the abstract one -- I.E. Tangerine Dream, to make music for the sake of making music.

At some point, certain pieces sold as art are so bad that they cannot be considered art . . . by me.

Purple is purple, no matter what you or I say (NO, it's violet! It is not, it's magenta!!), but a white canvas is a white canvas.

See, but it is at this point that your analogy to rap falls apart. Rap is not anti-art in the way that this effortless white canvas is, so I could easily point to this differentiation and say that that is what differentiates your non-art from rap, and that, by your own definition, rap still qualifies. I'm not going to ask you what your definition is (but feel free to give it a try, it's hard), but from everything you've said (especially WRT musicians vs. singers), I still stand by my stance that by your own definition, rap qualifies, and you have done nothing to dissuade me.

It's like saying dogcrap is food. Wellll, you could eat it, so technically it IS food. But aside from Divine, who would?

The definition of food would presumably include some relatively oblique scale of "stuff that has nuitritional merit" vs. "is bad for you" (the latter of which dogcrap falls under), not just "that which is et".

Whether something IS art is totally in the eye of the beholder, not the guy who created it or some goober in a magazine. It's is entirely up to YOU as to whether you think it's art or not.

But you just said that it was up to me! What if I were that goober? Wouldn't I be qualified to say that it's art?

So what you're saying is, IYHO, it is not art, but it is perfectly acceptable for the Recording Academy, or (by extrapolation) even the entire rest of the world to think so? I can live with that.

You do realize that that makes you "wrong". By my definition of "wrong", of course. And most of the rest of the world's. Or at least the Recording Academy's.

Pink flamingos are pink. IMHO. White music, however, is not white.

[Troy]

Yes it is. There are some elements to art that we must agree on, otherwise we would not be able to communicate, agreed?

Ok.

It has to have an artist controlling or creating it (I.E. even computer-generated poetry had someone write the original program and provide the input);

Who determines whether this person is an artist in the first place? Is he an artist because he says he is?

it has to have at least a potential audience (I only qualify it with "potential" because if a deaf person were to write a symphony that no-one else ever hears, I would have to say that art was still created), and it has to have at least one "artistic" aspect of it --

No, it does not have to have an audience at all. I know lots of people that create purely for themselves. Playing music and painting. Based on what I've seen of their other work, this work they do purely for themselves is undoubtedly art.

I realize that's kind of a circular definition, but I don't know how to put that in words, yet, other than to list all possible artistic aspects -- to tell a story, to evoke an emotion, to criticize sociopolitics, etc. But I don't know how to describe the abstract one -- I.E. Tangerine Dream, to make music for the sake of making music.

My dictionary says:
ART-
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

2. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

Interesting to note the word "beautiful". Perhaps "pleasing" is a better word.

If I could add to that it would be that the the individual experiencing the finished product (even if it is only the creator) is moved in an emotional way.

It's not about intelect, it's not about analysis or reasoning. It is purely an emotional response.

See, but it is at this point that your analogy to rap falls apart.

Jesus F'ing Christ, are we still talking about rap?

Rap is not anti-art in the way that this effortless white canvas is, so I could easily point to this differentiation and say that that is what differentiates your non-art from rap, and that, by your own definition, rap still qualifies.

Not sure I ever said that "Rap can't be art". That said, no rap has ever moved me on an emotional level except to make me angry and disappointed in the future of humanity. But I won't deny the possibilty that artful rap (that isn't paligeristic of already existing artful music) exists.

But you just said that it was up to me! What if I were that goober? Wouldn't I be qualified to say that it's art?

Sure. Just as qualified me saying it's not. Why should I believe you? Why should you believe me? MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!

So what you're saying is, IYHO, it is not art, but it is perfectly acceptable for the Recording Academy, or (by extrapolation) even the entire rest of the world to think so? I can live with that. You do realize that that makes you "wrong". By my definition of "wrong", of course. And most of the rest of the world's. Or at least the Recording Academy's.

Nothing about my opinion is humble, sonny. I'm a "Legend in my own mind", remember?

Yeah, a Recording Academy that called Milli Vanilli the best new artist, called Jethro Tull best metal band and nominated Fountains of Wayne for best new artist this year sure has a lot of credibility!

Do you really thing "most of the rest of the world" even has an opinion about this nonsense?

Yes, your definition of wrong is wrong. nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Pink flamingos are pink. IMHO.

Your opinions are as humble as mine. And Pink Flamingos have white bellies and black around their eyes, so I question the validity of even that.

[Dusty Chalk]

Who determines whether this person is an artist in the first place? Is he an artist because he says he is?

Alright, bad choice of words. "...has to have someone creating it...". The concentration is on a semblence of effort exerted.

No, it does not have to have an audience at all. I know lots of people that create purely for themselves.

That's another reason I said "potential". Presumably, if someone else saw/heard/ate said art, they would like it, yes? Besides, "themselves" is already an audience of one.

Based on what I've seen of their other work, this work they do purely for themselves is undoubtedly art.

A-ha! Audience of two.

Jesus F'ing Christ, are we still talking about rap?

I was.

Not sure I ever said that "Rap can't be art".

Something to the effect of "rap isn't music". Music, presumably, being a pure subset of art.

That said, no rap has ever moved me on an emotional level except to make me angry and disappointed in the future of humanity.

Whoever said that that isn't an emotional reaction? Protest songs are supposed to make people angry and disappointed in the future of humanity. And sounds to me like you haven't heard rap. There are many types of rap -- the kind you seem to have heard is the kind called "gangsta rap". There's many other kinds. Sometimes rap is fun (Outkast), sometimes it's very positively motivated (Tribe Called Quest? not sure).

Sure. Just as qualified me saying it's not. Why should I believe you? Why should you believe me? MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!

So, we've been agreeing this entire time?

EDIT: And, who said I wasn't? I never said I was ever doing anything less than making up my own mind.

For someone who thinks everyone is entitled to their own opinion, you sure do spend a lot of effort trying to convince me of yours.

Nothing about my opinion is humble, sonny. I'm a "Legend in my own mind", remember?

Yes, everything I say is correct.

I was just ribbin' ya'.

Yes, your definition of wrong is wrong. nyuk nyuk nyuk.

That's your opinion.

[DariusNYC]

Likewise, I see Rap as "outside" of music... it uses few of the disciplines/skills of "true music" (a little rhythm is all). No (even basic) melodic or instrumental skills are required, something that even a 5 yr old pianist or singer must master. Simply put, it's NOT music.... no more than "chess" is sport. But that's the closest place to dump it... so we deal with it; but don't kid yourself, it ain't really music. It's more akin to poetry... but it's been 100 years since poetry has been "hip" in our popular culture... hence Rap gets placed in the "music" dumper... for better or worse (worse IMO).

Not sure why you're definining music based on what technical skills are required to produce it. We don't hear "skills", we hear the music itself. Do we like it, do we find it pleasurable, powerful, compelling? Does it create an emotional or other reaction in us? This is how you judge music (and, incidentally, any art) and criticisms of any art based on the process used to create it will always be misguided (and unnecessarily elitist). And such criticisms are usually invoked by people with quite narrow tastes in music (or, for visual art, by the "I could've done that!" anti-20th-C.-art crowd). So, if you hate rap (what little you've heard, as you seem to have very little knowledge of it as evidenced by your statement), if it doesn't do anything for you, then say so; that's cool, a lot of people don't like rap. But delegitimizing it is a cheap and elitist move. Anyhow, the specifics are your statement are b.s. as well -- and really, they're so 1983 (although they were wrong back then as well) -- if you listen to any rap being played on the radio today, it's obviously music, and that's why it's universally recognized as such. And even if we accepted that technical skills of individual artists, rappers or musicians are relevant in themselves to the judgment of the finished product, rapping well, writing good rap lyrics, creating the instrumental portion of a rap song, all of that requires tons of talent to do well. So what's the issue.

[Troy]

A-ha! Audience of two.

No, I was assuming that their work I hadn't seen was art. Still an audience of one.

Whoever said that that isn't an emotional reaction? Protest songs are supposed to make people angry and disappointed in the future of humanity. And sounds to me like you haven't heard rap. There are many types of rap -- the kind you seem to have heard is the kind called "gangsta rap". There's many other kinds. Sometimes rap is fun (Outkast), sometimes it's very positively motivated (Tribe Called Quest? not sure).

Go back and read Webster's definition of art again. The idea that something the prokoves ANY emotional response (as opposed to a positive one) is art is a fairly recent spin on the meaning of art . . . and one that I don't really buy into. Art doesn't piss you off, it doesn't make you angry or depressed.

EDIT: And, who said I wasn't? I never said I was ever doing anything less than making up my own mind.

For someone who thinks everyone is entitled to their own opinion, you sure do spend a lot of effort trying to convince me of yours.Yes, everything I say is correct.

That goes both ways dood! It's called debate. Sure, I'm trying to get you to see it from a perspective that you normally don't see it from. I'm not so much looking to change your mind as much as get you to acknowledge that there are other ways of looking at it other than the common conceptions that you adhere to.

I was just ribbin' ya'.

No****, Sherlock. Right back attcha.

[jack70]

jack70:I'm cool with Rap being called "music" (no skin off my as_)... but I just think it's a hybrid that's something a little different. I think a lot of people are misreading the way I want to "classify" Rap, as a slam on it.

Okay, you say this now, but yesterday I read yr post that said:

I see Rap as "outside" of music
and
Simply put, it's NOT music
and
it ain't really music.
I see a big difference there, don't you? And I direct this to Troy as well, and Barry, and anyone else who's going to try to tell me that rap--a genre I mostly stopped listening to over a decade ago--is 'not music.'

I'm simply saying I don't consider it music, but it don't bother me that others do. This isn't something I'm all that worked up about, that's all (despite the size of this thread, LOL). I DO see Rap more as performance art or poetry than music. If others see it differently, so be it, is all. There are people of religion that similarly feel their religion is the word of God, yet most are willing to accept the fact others see the "world of God" differently. Those that DON'T are a bit (lot) whacked (like OBL). I'm a little whacked... but not a LOT.

No, I don't consider certain CD's, LPs and cassettes "music" -- my George Carlin, Jean Shepherd, Henry Rollins, Fireside Theater, LBJ tapes, Bob & Ray cassettes, etc etc. I don't even consider a lot of Laurie Anderson's stuff "music"... it's also out on the fringe and deserves a "better" term.

As to those BN musicans playing on certain Rap records... you've obviously got a much wider view of the whole Rap genre, so I'll specify my view. I'm talking about some of the a-cappella Rap, or stuff with a cheesy "rhythm" machine churning in the background, yet totally out of rhythm. That's the stuff I'm speaking of. So, I'll grant you that there is some Rap stuff that has enough musical involvement to be considered more under the "music" umbrella. But... a LOT of it just isn't. And simply being live on stage isn't necessarily a "musical" event; it could also be public speaking, poetic reading, dramatic reading, acting, performance art, etc.

Jack -- yes, most certainly definitely I forfeit. If you consider never accepting the initial challenge to your game as a forfeit. I hate people who try to spin-doctor a non-game as a win.

I accept your forfeit! (Just kiddin ya... I'll take whatever I can get) Your "scene" was hilarious (LOL)... touché

...I've put my cat on the keyboard once and got than some of the things I've heard.), but it's still music.

So a monkey typing gibberish on the keyboard is "literature"? gimme a break... Sound ain't music, and too much modern "expressionism" really ain't art; it's simply... expressionism. This is more artistic (cultural) relativism gone beserk IMO... a sign of the times, I suppose.

I guess you think my facetious idea of a grammy for "musical pets" has some legitimate musical validity? Whatever...

Just for the record, Hilary was nominated in the "Spoken Word" category -- a category which has nothing to do with music, officially. I.E. those of you who pretend that this is some slight against the term "music" are deliberately using this fact incorrectly. The organization that sponsors the Grammy's is the Recording Academy, and...

Yeah, I do know that the Grammys have a spoken word (non-music) category. Unfortunately this (lousy) web type of communication makes for "leaving out" a lot of stuff (cause of time). I brought up the Hillary nomination because I knew BarryL would get a laugh out of it. (Barry, you started this whole messy thread!) As someone who's recorded lots of music and spoken word over the years, I'm well aware of the technical aspects and reason for the award. But I found it typical (& humorous) of such a media-linked-event (grammies have become a "show"), that they'd nominate someone like Hillary. It's just so "PC"... and such a crock. Without hearing any of the other spoken-word works from last year, I'll go waaay out on a limb and bet that there are 5, 100 or 200 that are more deserving. Yeah, I'm not surprised they're flaunting her, but it's political, not artistic or technical... don't anyone kid themselves.

Most of the "music" grammys are likewise also based on likeability, cache, politics and other "high-school voting" dynamics, instead of a higher standard. It's (primarily) a popularity contest... more cynically it's a commercial vehicle to sell "product" by a bunch of suits. You see the same thing with the Oscars, where many of the voters, although in the biz, haven't even seen the works they're voting on. You add into that mix the million$ paid by the studios to champion certain films and stars in advert-campaigns, and you often get similarly nutty nominations as the Grammys. I much prefer reading lists of "best" films or "best" albums by writers or knowledgable people in the industry... their motives are not "selling their companies product," or "pushing a political agenda," but just an honest appraisal/opinion from their well honed experience.

Not sure why you're definining music based on what technical skills are required to produce it. We don't hear "skills", we hear the music itself. Do we like it, do we find it pleasurable, powerful, compelling?

Where to begin.... first music is AN art, it isn't "ALL art". Rap is simply a DIFFERENT art IMO... like drama, poetry, etc. Painting... IS NOT MUSIC either. Of course, if YOU WANNA SAY IT IS... go ahead. But something is not simply "what you say it is". There are certain historical frameworks of accepted ideas about many things, including various arts. There are some modern artists that have confused many people that "there are no longer any rules", and something is "whatever I damn well say it is". I say, "BS"... Dixieland is NOT Opera music... abstract expressionism is Not surrealism. The lunatic on the corner baying at the moon... is NOT a performance artist. IMO, some Rap is not music.

Does it create an emotional or other reaction in us? This is how you judge music (and, incidentally, any art) and criticisms of any art based on the process used to create it will always be misguided (and unnecessarily elitist)....And such criticisms are usually invoked by people with quite narrow tastes in music (or, for visual art, by the "I could've done that!" anti-20th-C.-art crowd)....

Read more carefully.... I'm NOT saying it's not art. (stop here & repeat). I'm NOT saying "I could'a done that". I'm just saying it's not the FORM of art you claim it is. (although some of it may be). It's a new, different type of art. My "criticisms" (if ya wanna call em that... but it's not) of Rap, have NOTHING to do with the processes inherent to it. My "criticism" is simply one of nomenclature and subtype. It's a fine point, and one that too many have missed.

As to "elitists"... it's idiots who watch some no-talent playwright, musician, or artist and accept it as "good" because they don't want to be judgmental that are the elitists. Art is not just about one's personal expression, it's about imparting that emotion to others. You can atonally bang on the piano all day long if you want, and you can call it "art" if you you want, but it ain't "music"... it's masturbation. That's fine for the person doing it... but don't tell me I'm elitist because I don't appreciate it.... jeeze.

[Dusty Chalk]

No, I was assuming that their work I hadn't seen was art. Still an audience of one.

Yeah, but you know what "assuming" does, don't you? It makes an ass out of u and ming.

Go back and read Webster's definition of art again. The idea that something the prokoves ANY emotional response (as opposed to a positive one) is art is a fairly recent spin on the meaning of art . . . and one that I don't really buy into. Art doesn't piss you off, it doesn't make you angry or depressed.

Some of my most favourite music is supremely depressing. Gorgeous, beautiful, pleasing...depressing.

I guess where I was coming from on that statement was censorship. The law about censorship says something to the effect of "...a work of art must have some social redeeming value..." -- I never liked that definition, so I was just trying my hand at something else -- something more vague, but not having to abide by social values. I guess it didn't work, but I think I was closer to the mark than they were.

That goes both ways dood! It's called debate. Sure, I'm trying to get you to see it from a perspective that you normally don't see it from. I'm not so much looking to change your mind as much as get you to acknowledge that there are other ways of looking at it other than the common conceptions that you adhere to.

Well, just for the record, I was trying to change your mind. There's a difference between arguing fact and arguing opinion. The latter is pointless, and I usually don't go there.

There's a grey middle ground that people often tread, and that's to try to convey fact as opinion or vice versa. I saw you...well, someone...trying to convey "rap is not music"...as opinion, and I disagree that it is a matter of opinion. It is my belief (not the same as an opinion) that what is and is not music, and what is or is not art, is not a matter of opinion.

Obviously, we disagree on this point.

Not to say I wasn't having some fun along the way. At this point, my expectations to change your mind are low...miniscule...non-existent. And it's no hair off my back either way.

Jack seems to believe that it is a matter of religion with me. Hmm...the analogy is not that far off. But let me turn it around on you, Jack. Murder. This is a matter of right and wrong, yes? This is a matter of definition (as well as many other things) possibly even religion (a lot of people base the fact that murder is wrong on That Commandment), not of opinion, wouldn't you agree? At least, in 90% of the non-borderline cases. My analogy is that sometimes, whether it appears to be religious-based or not, sometimes, matters are worth arguing. To use the old camel's-nose-under-the-tent-flap theory would be wrong in this case -- just because 10% (or whatever the number is, I'm making it up anyway) of the cases are borderline, doesn't mean that the definition of "murder" isn't still some "absolute".

The analogy would be that someone says that whether or not a particular ritual is right or wrong is a matter of opinion. It might be in some cases, but in the case of murder, that's got nothing to do with it.

Sorry, that sounds pretty extreme, to compare "rap is not music" with "ritual is not murder", but I think the analogy part holds.

[Chris]

Rap is just fast talking. Big deal. Anyone can do that.

Can they? Can everyone talk fast AND keep a rythym? Can you? If so, I'd suggest you go get a record deal with the amount of money that's being thrown at these so-called, "talentless" rappers out there.

The majority of rap that is out there is not what I'd call "art". I don't like much of it. Most of it has all the same lyrics anyway. But you can't deny that some rap artists have a talent that others can't duplicate. If rapping was just fast talking, you'd see way more people doing it, and a lot more people making money in that industry. Obviously, it isn't something that just anyone can do, and do well.

However, I don't think receiving a Grammy makes the music good. It's more like a popularity contest than a testament to how good the artist/album is. Good music is subjective. It's called "personal taste" and "opinion". It IS all music in some way, shape or form, regardless who here says otherwise. You cannot scientifically break down what makes something musical. It's not a scientific theory. It's preference. If it makes you feel good, and makes you want to dance, it is musical. Just because it has "fast talking" in it, doesn't mean it is NOT music.

I don't think River Dancing is "real dancing". It looks like anyone can do it. But in reality, it probably is not easy, and it is a form of dancing. I just don't like it. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I can say that it's not real dancing.

[jack70]

Jack seems to believe that it is a matter of religion with me. Hmm...the analogy is not that far off. But let me turn it around on you, Jack. Murder. This is a matter of right and wrong, yes? This is a matter of definition (as well as many other things) possibly even religion (a lot of people base the fact that murder is wrong on That Commandment), not of opinion, wouldn't you agree?

No, no, no... I didn't (really) use that "religion" analogy into the "music" debate (check it again). I used it (only) in trying to explain to Jay about my "fervor" (rather, my lack of it) in getting as "worked up" as some others (apparently) are about the "classification" of Rap in the music camp. Jay was making an issue of the depth of my belief on this issue... I was just explaining (with the religious analogy) that I was NOT a zealot on this (largely) semantic issue. If you are, fine... but I'm not, is all.

When I hear sportscasters and sports-talkshow people discuss bowling (as "sport")... I accept their methodology, even if I see it a little differently (it's NOT a big deal). Same with Rap... I don't think it's "true" music, it's something a little outside of it... but I can live with most people calling it "music", unlike say, religious zealots who have a hard time living with other popular world views.

BTW, classic producer Jerry Wexler was talking about Solomon Burke on 60-Mins last Sunday.... he called "all singing" as a trade between music & drama. Considering rappers use little melody in their "singing", one could say it IS more in the drama family (performance art).

Now, your bringing up the term "murder" is interesting because law is something that is codified through centuries of experience. It IS designed to be absolute (as close as words can make it). It's spelled out (unlike the term "music") with specifications called "elements of the law" for all manner of exigent circumstances. The whole debate of "what is music", is a pop-cultural dynamic that's very inexact and fluid, unlike the law, which is extremely exact (for good reason... ever read your state's penal code?).

At the same time, I'll bring up the fact that even "murder" is legally defined differently in different countries, different cultures, and different times (we constantly add/change those elements), sometimes radically so. If a people decide to make a "ritual" inside (or outside) some law, they can do it through our legal process. Interesting, because "polygamy" is undergoing that debate now after the results of the Mass gay-marriage case. But art isn't law, and science isn't art. For many though, art is religion... LOL.

[Dusty Chalk]

Actually, I think you did get my point, in that I was taking exactly your example, but had the opposing view.

See, you're mixing things up here a little bit, when you talk about the rigidity of the legal definition of murder, and the "fluid" definition of music. Certainly those are the cases, but those are also two different stances.

There are two ways to write a dictionary -- "prescriptive" and "descriptive". A "prescriptive" dictionary tries to define words as they should be used, and a "descriptive" dictionary tends to define words as they are already used. The two stances can also be looked at as liberal vs. conservative.

Anyway, that's what you're doing. You're taking the prescriptive stance on murder (other than that last paragraph about different cultures, but I'll get back to that in a second), but the descriptive stance on music. Why? Because it's a quickly changing society, and music is evolving quickly, and it would have been difficult to define music 50 years ago and still see it applied today.

Now back to murder -- sure there are borderline cases that, in one society would not be considered murder, but in another, it is. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the pretty clear-cut cases that most if not all of us would consider pretty clearly murder -- even if we didn't have the legal and linguistic background to give it a proper definition. The Hannibal Lechters and the Jeffrey Dahmers and the John Wayne Gacys and the Ted Bundy's and the borderline adolescents who killed "just to know what it felt like" and etc. It's still absolute -- at least in some cases. And because it is still absolute in some cases, it is not a matter of opinion -- it's not a matter of "well, that's your opinion" or Troy's or whatever. Whether or not Rap is music is an absolute, and you are wrong, not only because you don't think it is, but because you think it's your right not to think so. You're wrong about that, too.

That was my point.

[jack70]

See, you're mixing things up here a little bit, when you talk about the rigidity of the legal definition of murder, and the "fluid" definition of music. Certainly those are the cases, but those are also two different stances.

Not entirely... Although the "value" of the term "murder" is specific, I'm admitting it can be fluid also. Society changes laws all the time (18'th & 21'st amendments to the constitution). Music and graphic arts change. Scientific laws, on the other hand, are unique and unchangable once discovered. Since "music" is NOT a scientific fact, or legal law, "my" definition of music is certainly as valid as your's (which is lacking).

There are two ways to write a dictionary -- "prescriptive" and "descriptive". A "prescriptive" dictionary tries to define words as they should be used, and a "descriptive" dictionary tends to define words as they are already used. The two stances can also be looked at as liberal vs. conservative.

Anyway, that's what you're doing. You're taking the prescriptive stance on murder (other than that last paragraph about different cultures, but I'll get back to that in a second), but the descriptive stance on music. Why? Because it's a quickly changing society, and music is evolving quickly, and it would have been difficult to define music 50 years ago and still see it applied today.

...It's still absolute (murder) -- at least in some cases. And because it is still absolute in some cases, it is not a matter of opinion -- it's not a matter of "well, that's your opinion" or Troy's or whatever. Whether or not Rap is music is an absolute, and you are wrong...

OK, that's a fair point. But how about if I just say: "I don't care"... or "it don't matter".

Seriously, I also state that I'm willing to accept (live with) the "prescriptive" stance on music, even though I don't agree with it. Lets go back to a legal/law analogy here: Many pro-lifers "live with" abortion being legal, even though they disagree with it. Who knows... it's entirely possible people in 100 years will look back to our time and see "legalized abortion" as abhorrent as we now view the forced sterilization (eugenics) of the early 1900s, or slavery of the 1700's. Does that mean those who were anti-slavery in 1750, or anti-eugenics in 1920, or anti-abortion today were wrong? (hey, you brought up "murder"... Ethics is just as slippery as art IMO.)

Same goes for Rap. I'm just ahead of my time is all.... (don't hurt your head bangin' it against the wall...LOL)

[Chris]

WARNING: LONG POST. So many arguments, so little time. I guess it's time to find out if this board limits the length of posts.

Barry:

When rappers get the most nominations for Grammy awards, you know that popular culture has gone to hell in a handbasket.

The same thing was said of rock music.

Joel2762:

Rap is just fast talking. Big deal. Anyone can do that.

Wrong. Rap is not just fast talking. It may not be a big deal, but not anyone can do it.

Mr. Midfi:

And running is just fast walking, so Carl Lewis was no big deal either.

Good reply.

Troy:

it's still just running regardless of how fast it is. Anyone can do it.

Wrong. Most people know of at least one individual who can do no such thing. (I’m taking this statement literally for a reason)

Ergo, if rapping is just fast talking, well then it's still just talking . . . and anyone can do that.

Wrong. Most people know of at least one individual who can do no such thing.

anyone (except J) can drive a car

Wrong. I CAN drive a car. I’ve never had a license, but have driven on many occasions (even used a stick shift a few times) & once even owned a car that I drove using my learner’s permit (which I traded in for the non-driver’s license state ID that at least looks like a driver’s license, unlike permits, which most bartenders, bouncers, & deli clerks refused to acknowledge as being proper identification). But I CHOSE to stop driving because it’s just plain f*cking stupid.

Not just fast talkers.

I dispute that rap is just fast talking. It’s rhythmic, it’s syncopated, it’s a LOT of things that talking, and fast talking, are not.

Joel 2762:

What about the singers and bands that have real talent. They write great songs with good meanings, some have interesting stories to them.

Considering you're not providing any examples to back this statement up, it comes off as ridiculously subjective, to the point of being irrelevant.

But these rappers come in and take the awards for their small effort.

I’d like to know yr source for yr info on how much effort it takes to make a rap record.

Troy:

Chalky- I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone can make music. I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone is an artist either. That's a BS idea used to validate all the bad art of the 20th century.

Everyone’s standards are different. I agree with Dusty’s framing of this argument. If someone you don’t consider an artist has created a work you don’t consider art, but said work has been purchased by a customer who DOES define it as art, how is it that the creator, having now sold ‘art’ work as an ‘artist,’ is not an ‘artist?’ Please explain. I well understand that I may not think it’s ‘art,’ either, but that’s my standard. In a similar discussion/violent argument on another board recently, I stated that my standard for what is music—even if it’s the recorded screams of an infant, the recorded sound of a hammer pounding nails, the recorded sound of human regurgitation…wait a second, I hear that on a Butthole Surfers record. Where was I? Oh, yeah. If it’s produced & packaged as music, and a consumer is willing to buy it AS MUSIC, then I do not feel that I or anyone else is qualified to state that such a product is ‘not music’ to them just because THEY DON’T THINK it’s music. So apply that to what you said about ‘bad art.’

Everyone with vocal cords can sing, no matter how Shatner-esque or Yoko-ish they sound

Wrong. VOCALIZING is something that everyone with vocal cords can do. Singing is a MUSICAL SKILL that NOT everyone can do. Not everyone with vocal cords is capable of producing sounds that can be applied to a musical chart. Atonal vocalizing cannot be charted and therefore is not singing. And neither Shatner nor Yoko were 100% atonal.

Not everyone cannot pick up a guitar or sit at a keyboard and make music. They can make sound, but that does not mean it's music.

Wrong. They may not be able to PLAY, because that is a MUSICAL SKILL. But if they make sound that can be applied to a musical chart, then it MAY be considered music. I will personally stick to my standard that it should/must be SALEABLE as music to be considered music, with an asterisk for a very technical & arcane exception that says that if it can be charted, it is indeed music.

I am writing this as I scroll through the thread & I see that Dusty has addressed some of these points, so forgive me. So far I’m not disagreeing with much if anything in his arguments to yr statements. So:

This is just semantics. What you're talking about is BS music that no one wants to hear, let alone pay to hear. It may be music technically to you, but to me it's just sound.

It’s NOT semantics, it’s what IS and ISN’T. Whether or not it’s ‘BS music that no one wants to hear’ doesn’t mean it’s just sound & not music just because that’s the semantic prism you’re choosing to view this through.

Everyone sings. EVERYONE, even Dave G. Everyone knows tunes and sings along

Wrong. I have been acquainted with several people who told me that they have never engaged in any such activity in their entire lives. Some were people who never listened to music, but most at least listened to music on the radio.

Jack70:

Likewise, I see Rap as "outside" of music... it uses few of the disciplines/skills of "true music" (a little rhythm is all).

So what? That’s enough.

Simply put, it's NOT music.... no more than "chess" is sport

Absolutely, unequivocally, 100% wrong. Come on, Jackson. You know better than to say something like that. And you know the chess analogy doesn’t hold up.

it ain't really music. It's more akin to poetry... but it's been 100 years since poetry has been "hip" in our popular culture... hence Rap gets placed in the "music" dumper... for better or worse (worse IMO).

No, it’s because it’s created by MUSIC professionals, produced by MUSIC companies (okay, record companies, but if you can find one human being willing to testify in a court of law that the primary & most important record company products are NOT music, I’d like to meet him), sold by businesses that can be called MUSIC stores or RECORD stores (again, as a product that is classified as MUSIC, even if it’s the MUSIC section in a Barnes & Noble or Wal-Mart store—not poetry, or beef jerky, or shampoo, or #2 pencils—MUSIC), to MUSIC consumers (who, if you took a poll, would, I am confident, answer in at least a 99% percentile that their rap purchase was indeed a music purchase), who, in their consumption of the product, assume most if not all of the necessary characteristics and factors that must be present and in effect (i.e. the product can only be used if inserted into a hardware device such as one necessary for the playback of other recorded music products) if you are to define the phrase ‘listening to music.’

Nobody:

Rap is like anything else. Anyone can do it.

This is obviously in a different context, and I’m not trying to be an @sshole, just consistent. Unless I'm wrong, my understanding is that you don't actually believe this, at least not in the same way that others do.

In that vein, since you consider rap so easy, I really think you may wanna give up photography. There's a lot more money in rap if you can make it big, which shouldn't be hard since it's so easy.

Well put.

Dusty:

He is a consumate artist -- musician -- even if he didn't play any other instruments.

I don’t really have a problem with this, but…and I know you’re aware of this…if you’re in a discussion with someone who insists on being a stickler, they may insist, and be technically correct, that no vocalist, no matter how proficient, and I include Ella Fitzgerald, Frank Sinatra, Pavarotti—any vocalist that does not actually play a musical instrument can be called a musician. They will say, in a strict technical discussion on the issue, that a non-instrumentalist cannot be a musician.

Okay, I'm coming back to this after seeing yr latest post. I went to the dictionary & looked up musician: a composer, conductor, or performer of music; especially INSTRUMENTALIST. That’s in Merriam-Webster Online, and the emphasis is theirs. So I do agree with much of what you wrote in that last post.

Troy:

It's running taken to another level, but to those of us that couldn't care less it's still just running.

Dusty made a great point in a nearby post: it’s COMPETITIVE running. Those of you who couldn’t care less & choose not to draw this distinction are making a big mistake.

It's not that I'm saying it's easy

You said something—if not EXACTLY like that, then certainly VERY MUCH like that.

many of the practitioners of rap don't have any idea how the mechanics of music works

Many if not most practitioners of MUSIC have only a very basic & limited understanding of the mechanics of music—usually limited to the one or two or MAYBE three things that it is that THEY do. Does a French Horn player in a symphony orchestra have any understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by an improvisational saxophone player in a jazz club who works without the benefit of a chart? How about the other way around? Does the guitarist for Mudvayne have any understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by the director of the Harlem Boys’ Choir? Would Thelonius Monk have had an understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by a player who uses a Chapman Stick? Does Neil Peart have an understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by a guitarist using a Joe Maphis doubleneck Mosrite? And to placate some some of you, does Johnny Ramone have an understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by Robert Fripp? There are obviously an untold number of musical mechanics that a typical rapper (an individual who ADMITTEDLY is PROBABLY LESS MUSICAL than the typical MUSICIAN) will have absolutely no understanding of; but the chances are very good that none of the individuals in the examples I offer will possess any understanding of the mechanics of music that a rapper must understand.

If these guys want music awards, they should learn how to play an instrument and write songs.

Wrong. That’s what they should do if they want instrumentalist awards or songwriting awards. Otherwise, yr statement would apply to ANY nominee of ANY music award EVER who did not play an instrument, and/or write songs. I won’t bother with any examples of such individuals unless you really want to see some. Suffice it to say that such a list would include some of the most prominent, influential, and popular MUSIC artists of the last 100 years. Including, I have every confidence, SOMEONE whose work could be found in yr record collection.

Rap is for and about a world completely alien to me.

So? If it’s so easy, something anyone can do, ‘not music,’ or any of the other things you’ve said about rap in the past, how could that possibly matter? Once upon a time, rock music was so easy, anyone could do it. Quick, name someone besides Davy Jones who went from a musical theater background to become a rock star—rock music, for and about a world completely alien to people like him.

A world that I have no desire to be involved in either

You’re in that world, whether you like it or not. You don’t have to live in South Central to exist in the world rap operates in. Just like you didn't have to be in Chicago or Little Italy to be in the same world ‘Scarface’ was a part of when it was first released well over a half-century ago. Hmmm…’Scarface’…gangsta rap…hmmm…

It panders to a black culture that revels in debasement and greed

Oh, bullsh*t. The rap in my house does NO SUCH THING. I’d like to know why you feel that artists such as the Beastie Boys, Public Enemy, De La Soul, A Tribe Called Quest, P.M. Dawn, the Pharcyde, and Wyclef Jean—to name just a few—do anything that you just described.

My black friends think it's a dead end for black youth, and I'm inclined to agree with them.

They’re entitled to their opinions, just as you are. So how about if you ask them how ANY of the artists I just named are a ‘dead end for black youth?’ I’d REALLY like to know what their responses would be to such a question.

Here's another art analogy; they MUST first be able to do that…WITHOUT…
Oh, you can do it, but the trained eye can tell that the artist is in over his head.
Music is no different.

I’ll apply this statement to music: in order for a musician to play COMPLICATED music well, they must first be able to play SIMPLE music well. Well, NO WAY, PAL. By this logic prog musicians have to be able to play music as simple as, for instance, the blues. This is a fallacy. And I’m not talking about feeling, either; forget I said blues, let’s say blues structures. I’ve seen many, many players in my time whose understanding of music is such that they are simply NOT ABLE to play ANYTHING simple; they must ALWAYS overplay, and overplay in as complicated a manner as possible. I’ve been at plenty of social functions with ‘jams’ where you try to engage these sorts of players in something just a TRIFLE less complicated than what it is they’re doing. Many simply cannot. Some don’t understand the concept of a song—something with a beginning and an ending; some don’t understand that music does not mean one has to play lead guitar exclusively, with no attempt made at rhythm; some don't realize that some lyrics are meant to be heard without benefit of neverending soloing; others don’t have the attention span or discipline necessary to play something that’s ANY more repetitive than busy, note-y, endless, free-form soloing. There are many players who approach music, especially guitar, in more of a mathematical fashion than a musical one. Such players are often devoid of the ability to play simply, just as I am mostly devoid of the capability to play in a manner that most would not consider simple. If I didn’t apply yr analogy correctly, my apologies. Tell me where I got it wrong.

My contextural point is that everyone can sing "Happy Birthday to you"

Wow, now I’m REALLY surprised that you’d say something like that. Perhaps they can sing it, but they damn sure can’t sing it WELL. ‘Happy Birthday To You’ is considered to be an ESPECIALLY difficult song to sing, to the point where it is often used as a benchmark in the course of a professional audition. Actually, I do believe it has even been used for Broadway auditions. Yes, I'm serious. The jump in octave on the third line is no mean feat.

It's all about perception. I couldn't even begin to care what the unwashed masses think about the viability of rap as music. What the hell do they know?

Not caring about anyone else’s perception is GREAT. Except…what the unwashed masses think has a LOT to do with a LOT of what is produced (if not created) by entertainment companies. Now, yr taste in music, like many of us on this board, is interesting, fairly unique, and idiosyncratic. How about yr taste in movies? Did you like the first ‘Matrix’ movie? Wouldn’t it suck if it had never been made? What the unwashed masses think has a lot to do with movies like that being made. I know that if it hadn’t been there might’ve been something else that I might’ve enjoyed in a similar way, but I’d feel cheated if it had never been made because the unwashed masses wouldn’t have been expected to like such a thing. Now, of course, the unwashed masses’ opinions lead to the creation, production, & distribution of tons of crap, and not enough that I DO like—so, in a sense, you’re right, I really don’t care. (Except, both of us are on the same side of the argument that says that there's plenty of great stuff out there that's a little harder to find because it's under the radar of mass production) But I DO care enough to understand that it’s all part of the equation. Which means that you SHOULD care at least a whit what the unwashed masses think. Some times their opinions are not as advanced as what an authority on a subject may know to be true; other times they are more advanced than one would think considering how slow some businesses & industries are to respond to the desires of their customer base. In this case their opinions on rap are more advanced than the opinions of those who contend that rap is not music.

I’ve had a BUSY week, so I apologize for catching up in this clunky fashion. But I couldn’t let the posts in this thread go.

Great reply.

[Dusty Chalk]

Well, yeah, but let me respond to even that. It's not black and white, it's not "it's worth dying over" vs. "it's not important". You know the old expression, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it"? I may not like rap, but I will fight as long as it's convenient their right to call it music. As long as I'm sitting here at my computer. Get me started at a bar, and I'll probably just wander off and get drunk.

I don't even consider a lot of Laurie Anderson's stuff "music"... it's also out on the fringe and deserves a "better" term.

Hard to argue with that -- she's a self-proclaimed "performance artist". And I agree that her spoken word pieces wouldn't qualify as music -- they might ride on a bed of music, but they are not entirely music.

And yes, I realize that you are trying to say the same thing about rap, but I disagree. Wire have a whole disc that is basically one note (Dugga Dugga Dugga), is that not music? You have to hear it -- it is.

Same goes for Rap. I'm just ahead of my time is all.... (don't hurt your head bangin' it against the wall...LOL)